In their attempt to have the ruling upholding Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State’s election, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate for governor, Akanimo Udofia, suffer a defeat before the Supreme Court on Monday.

The demands for the supreme court to overturn its decision and deviate from the final judgment that ended the legal dispute in January 2024 were denied.

O.U. Orji, an attorney, startled the court on Monday during the proceedings by requesting a reconsideration of the January 18 final ruling.

The attorney, claiming to speak for the APC and Udofia, requested that the decision be reviewed in the interest of justice and fair play before the whole panel of seven judges on the bench, presided over by Justice Uwani Musa Aba-Aji.

Sensing the judges’ stance, Orji altered his statement to clarify that he was just holding a brief for a different attorney.

He said that if the matter had been his own, he would have voluntarily chosen to withdraw, and that a lawyer had been in touch with him early in the morning to submit the request to the Supreme Court.

Reminded that he was the only lawyer before the Supreme Court, Orji stated he wanted to abandon the case due to the court’s atmosphere and the sage advice of more experienced attorneys.

“As a minister in the temple of justice, do you need to do the right thing on your own or contact your client before the right thing can be done?” Justice Tijani Abubakar interjected at this point.

Sensing that the attorney would face severe consequences, Nigerian Senior Advocate Damian Dodo stood up and expressed sincere regret on the attorney’s behalf for filing a pointless motion in court.

Lawyer Orji then apologized profusely and requested that the petition be withdrawn.

The application was then denied by Justice Uwani Musa Aba-Aji in a succinct order, along with a strong caution to attorneys not to become the laughing stock of desperate politicians.

According to Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, the appeal contained nothing fresh that the court needed to take into account.

The panel stated that the concerns presented in the case have been satisfactorily addressed by the concurrent rulings of the two subordinate courts.

It said that the appellants’ assertions that Eno was an ex-convict and that he had fabricated his West African Examination Council, or WAEC, results were not supported by evidence, and that the tribunal and the Court of Appeal were correct to make this determination.